Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

At this time of year we have the opportunity to appreciate those values most important to us.

For Christians, it is a time to celebrate the birth of Jesus and to contemplate who He was and still is, why He was sent to us and to reflect on His message.

For all, it is a time to turn a page to a new year, a time to start anew.

How do you plan to spend this precious time? May I suggest some time for introspection, to contemplate what is important to you, to reflect on what your heart tells you.  To remember the  injunctions to love your neighbor and to treat others as you would have them treat you, principles that are as sound today as they always have been.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Norm Pineault 

The Future of Modern Conservatism

In an interview article in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend entitled "The Crises in American Self-Government" by Sohrab Ahmari, Professor Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University is quoted as follows:

"We have now an American political party and a European one. Not all Americans who vote for the European party want to be Europeans. But it doesn't matter because that's what they are voting for. They're voting for dependency, for lack of ambition, and for insolvency."

Needless to say, Professor Mansfield does not approve. He is a conservative who has taught for fifty years in a liberal institution. His political views are based on a philosophy that goes back to the Greek philosophers to Tocqueville and others who he finds are "timeless and universally relevant".

From that perspective, he characterizes the Obama presidency as revealing "-the exhaustion of the progressive agenda of which his presidency is the spiritual culmination".

Professor Mansfield, however, remains optimistic for America's future. He bases his outlook on our history, our values and our constitutional foundation. To see more of what he has to say, refer to the WSJ article on the link cited below.

What are your views as to the future of modern conservatism and its role in America's way forward? Comments are welcomed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578149292503121124.html

The Road Ahead

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed----."     Declaration of Independence


As a conservative who regards the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the bedrock of our individual freedoms and sovereignty, I am troubled by the path that we have been on and which we elected to stay on this past election.

We have discussed in past posts the country's problems:

     *A stalled economy.

     *Out of control public expenditures.

     *An unsustainable federal debt.

     *A political and cultural climate that fosters dependence and seeks security at the expense of liberty.

     *A federal government that is too big, intrusive and bureaucratic with no clear lines of responsibility.

     *The lack of political will and the courage to address and solve our problems.

     *Politicians who speak of high ideals and big things but act small.

     *The undue influence of lobbyists in the legislative and regulatory process and their corrupting influence on our election campaigns.

     *The lack of respect and tolerance for each other's opinions and insensitivity in our public discourse.

     *An emphasis on what is expedient, not what is morally right or in keeping with our nation's ideals and constitutional imperatives.


 I strongly believe that our country would have been better served had we been truer to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In the main, those principles envision a federal government of enumerated and limited power granted to it by the sovereign will of the people--that such powers granted were to be divided and balanced among the three branches--and that powers not granted "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment).

In the first ten amendments of the Constitution (the Bill of Rights), certain freedoms are specifically protected from federal jurisdiction and in subsequent amendments individual liberty and rights are guaranteed to all of the nation's citizens.

In its size and scope, the federal government as it now exists is far beyond its constitutional mandate of limited and specific powers. For example, the federal government currently regulates much of how we live our daily lives from the food we eat, to the education of our children, to the toys they play with, to the products we buy, to the health care we use and much more. In addition, the government has the power to access all manner of personal information through the tax system, the internet and its ability to intercept private communications.

One could argue that these government functions are required for our safety, for security purposes. But consider what we have lost: diminished personal freedom, individual sovereignty, responsibility and the incentives that spark individual initiative. With these values comes risks but if we are to be free, we should be willing to accept some uncertainty, some risks. If we do otherwise, we are denying those essential elements that made our country exceptional: "--that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It is true that our nation historically has faced and conquered numerous crises. I believe that we still can if we are resolute and true to our principles. But questions remain.

Will we follow the example of generations past who forthrightly faced their problems? Or are we to the point that we can not or will not? Are we capable of making the changes required to get our federal government under control? To restore to the States and to the people those powers that were meant to be retained by them? Only time will tell.

Another Look at the Election Results

What is it that divides us?

Much of the liberal/conservative split has as its origin the question of the size and scope of the welfare state. Conservatives are often portrayed as being hard-hearted, unsympathetic and uncharitable. We know that is not the case but it seems to stick because we oppose a welfare state that is clearly out of control.  Or is it because we oppose the misuse of funds in support of questionable goals? Or because we oppose spending that enables immoral behavior (remember Sandra Fluke)? Or that we are more rational, realistic (and less emotional) about these topics? Or that we stand on principle, not political pandering and opportunism? 

In a follow-up post on his blog (cited in my previous post) Rabbi Pruzansky points out that true charity is a voluntary act, not one to be forced by government. I would add to that idea that government should have no right to pass on our tax dollars to organizations that perform immoral acts (Planned Parenthood), distribute to organizations that don't need it (Big Bird), benefits political friends (Acorn etc.) or is just plain wasted (adding to an unsustainable debt).

Another critical issue that divides us is abortion. Conservatives who are pro-life believe that abortion is immoral, an intrinsic evil that should be opposed. Liberals as well as secularists say conservatives want to deny a woman's "right/freedom" to choose. The charge is perplexing. The very same liberals and secularists have little hesitation in supporting the imposition of health care mandates on religious institutions contrary to the Constitution's clear guarantees of religious freedom. 

It is generally agreed, at least among conservatives, that the country's divisions have a strong moral dimension and a constitutional one as well. We have discussed the constitutional issues in prior posts but to summarize I will only say that the federal   government, as it currently exists, is a danger to our fundamental freedoms. It is too big, too intrusive and unmanageable with no clear lines of responsibility. If we continue on this path, we not only will be less free, we will also be economically diminished and a second rate international  power.

Frankly, I thought that economic considerations coupled with the fact that it was the "right" thing to do would win the day for Romney. The fact that it didn't is partially explained by a bad economy and the existence of a bloated government which fosters a dependency on welfare (folks in fact do want "stuff" as Bill O'Reilly would say). Other factors include fear (Grandma over the cliff), demonizing Romney as a ruthless capitalist (with ties to those scoundrels on Wall St), the image of Republicans as being insensitive to the immigration problem (enforcing our borders and cries for no "amnesty") and the so called Republican "war on women". 

Both sides had less total votes than the 2008 election.  Romney didn't get as many Republican votes as McCain in 2008 (because he wasn't conservative enough?--talk of cutting off your nose to spite your face--ironic when you think about it). He also lost votes among Hispanics because of the strong Republican stance on border control. For many Hispanics that stance is directed at their family and friends. Once they heard it, they shut out anything else the Republicans/Romney had to say.

Obama' s decrease in total votes from 2008 can in large part be attributable to a decrease in the enthusiasm he previously generated. Whether it was due to the economy, or because Obama is now more familiar or just "buyers remorse" is an open question.  It is also apparent that these votes did not go to Romney. Was it because he was "too conservative? Again, another irony.  Or was it because he didn't "fire them up" even if we consider that this election had been described as crucial for the country's future? If this portion of the electorate thinks that there is a perfect candidate out there, they will continue to be disappointed.

My conclusion is that enough voters (and non-voters) were short-sighted and ill informed that the results favored Obama.  I don't know if "dumb" is the correct description (as Rabbi Pruzansky puts it) but whatever the malady, it exists in abundance on both sides of the aisle. 

Past, Present and Future

My initial reaction (see my last post) to the election results were anything but upbeat. In the past week, I haven't changed my mind.

In my posts on this blog, my standard for appraising any policy or proposal has been the Constitution.  In summary, I believe that the federal government in its current form has gone beyond its constitutional mandate. I further believe that this result will be to the ultimate detriment of all of us, rich and poor, of all ethnic heritages and no matter where we live.

This result did not suddenly happen over the last four years. We have been drifting toward it for some time.

One analysis is entitled "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire" and is found in the blog link cited below.  You can agree or disagree with it but don't ignore it. As usual, comments are welcome.

http://rabbipruzansky.com/

Post Election Blues

What can we say about the election results? Some random thoughts:

I have several emotions on this day after the election. I am disappointed, angry and sad for our country. It is a day of mourning.

This is not the country I know any longer.  This is not the country where a president could say: "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". That call to service has  been turned on its head. We are now a "gimme" nation with Sandra Fluke as its emblem.

We have drifted to this conclusion for some time; it did not happen in one day. Who is to say when it started----when was the balance between sobriety and irresponsibility tipped? Who was there to warn of unsustainable expenditures---why did we allow them to be marginalized?

We face some very serious problems--you might even refer to them as existential. With Romney, I could see a way out; with Obama, the uncertainty continues. His campaign was one of acrimony--it will not be easily bridged. He is not prone to compromise, to reach across the aisle, to respect those in opposition.

The first crises facing us is the so called fiscal cliff. The President and Congress should address it now--there is no longer any excuse to kick the can down the road. The solution isn't in raising taxes for the rich--the problem is much larger. Spending has to be brought under control. Speaker Boehner now has the proverbial task of putting his finger in the dike.

What will be the impact on our role in the world? What is to become of the Middle East? Of Israel--our friend and ally? Will the world now be apportioned into spheres of influence--China, Russia and us?  We know that terrorists are not defeated despite Osama's demise--they will strike again but where and when? How will we respond? Only time will tell.

These are my random thoughts on the day after the election. What are yours?

A Summary of Where We Are on this Election Day

The choice in this election has both a philosophical and practical side.

The philosophical: Barack Obama reflects the view of his father.  That view is based on the premise that the Western powers subjugated other countries and populations primarily to exploit their resources. It is a view that is not only anti-colonial but anti-capitalists as well.

It is a view that puts America (with all its wealth) as the inheritor of that history. From that idea, proposals to "spread the wealth" and laws to control private industry/business are promulgated.  From that idea such sentiments such as "you didn't build that" and references to voting as "revenge" are based. And it explains, in my opinion, Obama's "apology tour" early in his presidency.

We should oppose these ideas on several levels. Briefly, they are:

1) America was never a major colonial power.

2) Our wealth was built on the basis of a free economic system. That system has led many to immigrate here and to prosper under their own initiative. They represent the vast majority of Americans today and are the bulwark of the middle class.

3) Policies emanating from anti-colonial, anti-capitalists views can only be self destructive and hurt people of all classes.

4) Such policies are in opposition to our Constitutional values and historic tradition.

The practical: We now see where Obama's policies have led us. The results are there for all to see. In the press, on the net, during the political campaigns and in past posts of this blog and comments received. They show an economy that is frozen in place, no better than it was four years ago, a country that is divided and fearful, a country under threat from emboldened foreign enemies and a country that sees its liberties diminished.

Many attribute these results to incompetence. That is only part of the story. Based on his background and ideas, Barack Obama seeks to fundamentally "transform" America. If you don't think so, read his books, see the movie "2016".

It is often said that this is a critical election. If Obama is reelected, there will be no turning back. That his policies will be too ingrained to reverse or change. Based on what we now know, the reelection of Barack Obama is a risk we should not take. It is a bridge too far.

Mitt Romney is the better alternative. He best represents our values, knows how our free enterprise system works, has held both private and government leadership posts and is committed to reverse the path we are on to a brighter, more optimistic future.

Barack--Your Man?

The President regards "them" with disdain, prefers not to deal with "them" or even to be in their presence. Harry Reid has said that there is to be no compromise with "them".  Key members of the Democratic Party advocate any all means to defeat "them".  "Liberals" demonstrate an illiberal intolerance toward every utterance by "them". The media ignores journalistic objectivity in their criticisms of "them".

"Them"? A foreign power that threatens us and our allies? Terrorists who attack and kill Americans at every opportunity? It is neither of these.

"Them" refers to conservative Republicans and everyone or anyone who dares oppose the Democrats' agenda. In their zeal, Obama adherents justify deceit, fear and division to promote their ideology. An ideology that opposes American values of limited government and individual freedom. An ideology that promotes big government and ultimate control.

Given this fundamental difference, it is no wonder that our government is deadlocked and ineffective.  That our problems have not been addressed, our economy essentially "on hold".

Want more of the same? Barack Obama is your man.

Want to break out of this mess? Vote for someone who knows how to govern and reach across the aisle: Mitt Romney.

Putting Barack Obama in Focus

In 2008, many voters were disillusioned. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dragged on and our economic future was in doubt.

In 2008, we did not have a clear picture of Barack Obama, a candidate who offered hope and change but little in the way of a specific agenda. A key factor in the campaign was Obama's appeal as the first Black American to have a good chance to be elected president. The fact that he was not well known, lacked meaningful experience and accomplishment was overlooked. That left it to the voters to fill in the blanks.

Fast forward to 2012: We now know what Barack Obama means by change. He has revealed his vision of government as the primary driver of the economy, responsible for its growth and direction and including a right to insure a "fair" distribution of wealth.

Barack Obama's views are rooted in his background. Those views were influenced by the historical injustices suffered by countries subjugated to colonial rule and by the hardships endured by Blacks in the United States. (See the movie "2016: Obama's America" narrated by Dinesh D'Souza).

I submit that Obama's views led him to be a community organizer and ultimately to seek the presidency.    His views in large measure explain his "apology tour" in his first year as president, his persistent drumbeat for the rich to pay their "fair" share and other actions that he has taken.

Efforts to remedy past injustices are not new. In the last 100 years, the United States and other democracies have suffered many battles to liberate those countries where freedom was oppressed. In this country, we have made significant strides to insure civil rights and equal opportunity.

We have not yet completed the process; there is more to be done. But President Obama, acting in large part contrary to America's values, has not served us well. He was wrong to stress what divides us and not what unites us---wrong to instill an atmosphere of "us vs. them"---wrong to seek top down government solutions and not rely on the industriousness and ingenuity of the American people and wrong to sideline Constitutional principles and freedoms in his attempt to reach questionable ends.

By any measure, both domestic and foreign, we are in a worse position now then when Barack Obama first took office. If he is elected to a second term we can expect more of the same and very possibly worse.

Comments on Last Night's Debate

The strategies used by both parties in last night's debate were a continuation of those in the vice-presidential debate last week.

The Romney campaign continued its presentation of their plans to right the economy. The Obama campaign sought to regain some of the ground lost in the first debate by going on the attack, by obfuscating the facts and diverting the discourse from a pathetic record.

That record includes:

     An increase of Americans out of work from 21.5 million to 23.1 million; 
     An increase of those in poverty from 39.3 million to 46.2 million;
     An increase in our debt from $10.6 trillion to $16 trillion;
     Persistent unemployment and a sluggish economy.

As president, Obama has not used his legitimate powers to fix our very real problems. He has used those powers to redirect the economy and "transform" America.  If reelected, he plans more of the same--to go "forward".

His record and policies are not consistent with who we are as a country or with the cherished principles and freedoms cited in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan offer a better alternative. It is an alternative based on constitutional principles. It is also an alternative that provides hope for the future, not despair. 

The Biden Smirk and What it Reveals

If you watched the Vice-Presidential debate last night (Oct. 11), what is your first recollection when reminded of it? To me, it is the Biden smirk.

What are we to make of the Vice-President's outlandish and insulting behavior? Outlandish because it is not what we should expect from a prominent government official; insulting not only to his political opponents but to the American public as well.

There has always been an undercurrent of arrogance in the Obama message. His communicative style resembles that of a preacher declaring the unalterable truth to all of us who should be grateful to be its recipients. There is no give and take; there is no compromise--why bend when you encompass the truth?

Indicative of his attitude are his numerous executive decrees, his waivers to requirements of established law and his unconstitutional mandates under the Affordable Care Act.

The Obama governing rationale and his policies have led to monumental failures. No amount of spin can turn these failures into successes. And they know it. As Obama himself said some four years ago, when someone has a record of failure, he/she turns to small things and seeks to demean the opposition.

This is what we saw in last night's vice-presidential debate. You bluster, you interrupt, you bend the truth, you feign a child's tantrum and you smirk. Or you do as the President did, you are unresponsive and not engaged, above the fray. All in an effort to avoid the real issues.

We should not tolerate this kind of behavior in our elected officials. Neither should we support those who encourage it especially those in the media. It sullies the political process and undermines the truth.

Except for the Vice-President's revealing behavior. the debate last night was effectively a non-event. In this important election, we need a clear understanding of the issues, not smoke and mirrors. For the remainder of the campaign and in the last two debates, we deserve an honest discussion of issues based on facts. We should expect no less.

A Nation of Laws or of Men?

Mitt Romney made several important points in the first presidential debate last night. As you may surmise from the blog's title, I was pleased with his references to the Declaration of Independence and to the Constitution.

As president, Barack Obama has issued numerous executive orders, many of which are of dubious constitutionality. Some examples:

     *He has told defense contractors that they need not issue notices of impending lay-offs in disregard of the provisions of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notice (WARN) Act.

     *He issued waivers for work requirements in the welfare reform act passed in the Clinton administration.

     *He promulgated new rules to resolve the status of illegal immigrants without congressional approval.

     *He issued regulations mandating religious organizations to include in their insurance policies coverage for contraceptives and abortifacient drugs contrary to their beliefs and in violation of the first amendment's guarantee of religious liberty.

     *He announced that his administration would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, an act duly enacted by Congress,

This President avoids participation in the legislative process, an area where presidential leadership is important. He seems to have an aversion to the give and take of the political arena, projecting an aloofness and dislike of the process of governing.

An example of this was his handling of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which was rammed through Congress in secret with special deals reminiscent of the politics in authoritarian countries and not of a democratic republic.

The Declaration of Independence declares in part: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Since ancient times, the prevailing philosophy has been that all men are not created equal, that each person only had those rights assigned to whatever class in which they were born. The Declaration's pronouncement of equality for all turned that concept on its head. We as Americans have struggled to perfect that ideal since our founding. It is an ideal worth defending. It is an ideal which makes America an exceptional nation--"a city on a hill".

The ideals proclaimed in the Declaration are the basis for the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, its Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. Attempts to circumscribe these basic precepts, to manipulate and stretch their meaning beyond the original intent, is an affront to constitutional government and a threat to our liberty.

Obamaworld

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".        (Declaration of Independence)

The following post is by a guest contributor and concerns our most basic liberties. It is quoted in full:


"The choice is  clear to me. I do not want to go to Obamaworld. To become a denizen of that world would mean giving my future, my fortune, such as it is, and my liberty to a 'leader' who knows not what to do with it or perhaps worse, does.

This leader is so caught up with his own image and likeness that nothing else matters.  It is now clear that this president doesn't even communicate with his own party leaders, never mind world leaders. When one's image is all important, burnishing it is a full time endeavor.  Palavering on "The View" with celebrities is an example of that burnishing. Rome burns and Nero frolics with TV personalities. Note however that this time many of those are absent.

But, even more than fiscal ineptness and empty promises, the threat to our freedoms looms large. Governing by executive decree smacks of Caesar Chavez and his ilk. Some of our most precious freedoms are the right to life, the right of religious expression, the right to speak out: to dissent.

The campaign to continually impinge on those freedoms is strong, flourishing in Obamaworld. Particularly with regard to the Department of Health and Human Services mandates eliminating the right of church sponsored health facilities (or any one else for that matter) to not pay (therefore support) contraceptive and abortifacient services.

There is but a small movement to the next step. I will speak here of abortion. I know of this fight against this intrinsic evil. I was there early on. I speak of it in a medical sense. Once life is imbedded in the womb, there is a human being. Period. No question. This is called a child. A baby. It clings to its mother; it hears, it feels, it moves. If you do an amniocentesis, this child will flinch from the needle.

When real time ultrasound sonograms were first introduced, I knew a radiologist who was invited to view a pregnant uterus. After he saw the baby sucking his/her thumb, he was so moved he spent the entire next year studying the Bible.

Once this child with a beating heart, a tiny growing brain and sensation is within, there is only one way to remove it. That way is to forcibly extract it, sometimes to fracture him/her, to suction it out. If the child is late-term (late-term = full term or at viability: able to live outside the womb) it means delivering it and leaving it to die. Period.

Ironically, wanted children are saved in neonatal units everywhere. Wanted children--3 pounds and up.

It is my contention that many do not understand these facts--they are often 'offended' by them.  If I am a radical: so be it."

Sandra

It's More Than the Economy, Stupid.

In 1992, former President Clinton ran for president with the slogan: "It's about the economy, stupid". Well, this time around, it's about more than the economy.

Despite what the pundits may say, underlining the issues of unemployment, slow growth and unprecedented debt, there is deep concern about where we are heading.

In a recently discovered tape from 1998, Barack Obama is heard as saying that he believed in the "redistribution" of wealth. And in a quote from the 2008 campaign, he responded to a question from "Joe the plumber" by saying that we need to "spread the wealth".  As president, he has stated on numerous occasions that he aims to raise taxes on the rich so that they pay their "fair share".

Without serious cuts in spending, taxes on the rich alone will neither cover the deficit or whatever other programs Obama has in mind. Additional sources will have to be found. Potentially any private asset (401k's and IRA's for instance) may be the target for new taxes.

As part of the "Affordable Care Act" (or Obamacare) regulations have been issued to force religious institutions to provide contraceptives and abortifacient drugs in their health insurance policies. The mandate is contrary to the beliefs of Catholics and other people of faith.

It should be self evident to the administration that such an imposition is clearly in violation of the second amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. If allowed to stand, what else will follow: will religious institutions be forced to perform abortions or other procedures mandated by government? Will procedures now covered be denied as "too costly"?

Also under the "Affordable Care Act", twenty new or additional taxes will be imposed on individuals and businesses. Included are an additional Medicare tax on income, a surtax on investment income, the individual mandate "tax", an excise tax on health insurance etc. Given a history of rising health care costs, these taxes and the social security medicare deduction, are bound to increase.

In a second term, we can expect more regulations from an Obama administration. His propensity to issue executive decrees to circumvent legislative intent or to implement rules without Congressional approval will keep the bureaucracy busy to our detriment.

Consider for example decrees he has already issued granting waivers for work requirements of the welfare law passed under Clinton and his decree changing immigration rules without Congress's involvement.

In light of President Obama's record and his statements, it is more than likely that we will see more of the same if he is reelected to a term where he will have "more flexibility".

This election is critical. It is more than just about the economy. It calls into question what our future holds. It is about individual freedom and REAL opportunity. It is about what type of government we want and what type of country we want for ourselves and for our children.

When is a "Liberal" not a liberal?

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal ("The Obama Democrats"--9/13/12), Daniel Henninger said the following:

     "They've (Barack Obama and the modern Democratic Party) got goals, and what they want from the people---is compliance."

     "The Obama Democrats are no longer the party of FDR, Truman, JFK or Clinton. All were combative partisans, but their view of the American system was fundamentally positive."

     "An Obama victory wouldn't be just a defeat for the GOP. It would be a defeat of the post-World War II Democratic Party. And they know it. The progressive left has wanted to push Democratic liberalism over the cliff for decades. This is their best shot to get it done."

     "FDR's Social Security and LBJ's Medicare asked all to buy in to supporting it. Obama-Care doesn't; Mr. Obama revels in explaining how 'they' will pay for 'you'. Left unanswered, demagoguery can win elections. And take a generation to undo."


Liberalism is defined as: "tolerant; not narrow in one's ideas and views; broad minded." (World Book Dictionary).  The Democratic leaders mentioned in Mr. Henninger's article generally had those defined attributes.  But should President Obama be considered a "Liberal Democrat"?

Before responding, we should consider not only the above article but also the President's record over the last three plus years. President Obama has:

     *Advised companies that they need not comply with a law that requires notification to employees 60 days prior to an impending layoff.

     *Indicated that he would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

     *Not effectively enforced the immigration laws and nullified certain provisions by executive edict.

     *Issued regulations forcing religious organizations to provide their employees health care coverage for contraceptives and abortifacient drugs.

     *Provided waivers for work requirements contrary to the provisions of the welfare reform act passed in the Clinton administration.

     *Supported and signed the "Affordable Care Act" (Obamacare) which was essentially negotiated in secret with little public discussion contrary to promises of open government.

     *Conducted foreign affairs and defense policies in a partisan and unilateral manner, negating the overall bipartisan record of both Republican and Democratic administrations of past years.

In summary, President Obama has shown an arrogant intolerance for views not his own, in issuing unconstitutional decrees negating duly passed Congressional legislation, in his policies of divisiveness, not inclusion and in his conduct of foreign affairs and the national defense.

               He is not in the liberal Democratic tradition of FDR, Truman, JFK and Clinton.

Economic Lessons From the Past

At the Democrat Convention last week, former President Clinton defended President Obama's proposal to impose higher taxes on the rich. Mr. Clinton stated that during his term of office, economic growth was good and the rich were paying higher marginal tax rates.

In an article entitled "What Obama Didn't Learn From the 1990s" (Wall Street Journal. Aug. 3, 2012) written by Edward Conard, a former managing director of Bain Capital, states: "The economic growth of the 1950s, the 60s and the Clinton years had many causes. But one of them wasn't high marginal tax rates".

According to the author, the causes of economic growth are "successful investment and rising equity values." Furthermore: "The notion that the robust economy of the 1950s, 60s and 90s proves that historically high government spending and taxes have little, if any effect on growth is naive-----today's endless increases in government spending with no discernible improvement in our infrastructure or educational outcomes makes it painfully obvious that politics and special interests have undercut its benefits".

During the last four years, we have seen the results of Obama's economic policies:

     *Unemployment of over 8% for the last 43 months.

     *63.5% of the civilian labor force working, the worst outcome in 31 years.

     *Anemic economic growth averaging just above 2%.

     *A $16 trillion debt and still growing.

     *Continuing low numbers of jobs added (96000 in August).

     *Just over half the total number of jobs added in this "recovery"than in each of the last nine recoveries since WWII.

President Obama's campaign calls for a continuation of his presidency and for the country to stay on the same track. His call cannot be taken seriously given his track record.

We have a better choice. Mitt Romney has a proven record and experience in the private sector, in running the Winter Olympics and as governor of Massachusetts. Granted he does not speak in flowery terms, but he is the candidate best suited to fix our ailing economy and the candidate that I will vote for.

We Should Let President Obama Go.

Despite the fact that President Obama continues to deny his record by talking about anything but, we know what the last four years have given us:

     *An economy that is barely growing and failing to generate enough jobs.

     *A stimulus bill that did not work wasting tax money as in the Solyndra experience.

     *Health care legislation pushed through Congress in secrecy and with special deals.

     *The implementation of health care regulations that threaten religious liberty.

     *Growing debt and out of control spending.

     *A tendency to govern by executive order rather than working with Congress and using the "bully pulpit" to lead and persuade the American electorate.

     *Continued attempts to divide us by stressing what divides, not what unites us.

     *A campaign that uses acrimonious tactics and questionable facts when criticizing opponents.

President Clinton was able to work with a Republican Congress. Why can't Obama?

The fact that the President has continued his divisive ways does does not bode well if he is reelected. We would see more of the same: economic stagnation, divisive politics, deadlock, a disunited country, government by fiat and less freedom.

President Obama may be an  OK guy and a good family man but he is a bad president. Quoting Clint Eastwood, we should "let him go".

"We the People of the United States---"

At a time when some of our states are threatened by a tropical storm and possibly a hurricane, we hope for the best for all those who are in its path.

The opening words of the Constitution, "We the People of the United States---",  remind us of who we are and what we have in common. In the current economic and political storm our country faces, we Americans would do well to remember those values we hold dear and are embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed--".  (Declaration of Independence)

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Preamble to the Constitution)

No one should deny that our current problems need to be resolved; too many of our fellow Americans are hurting. In the coming weeks, we will hear many arguments on which road we should take. We may sometimes question the principles and even the motives of those with which we disagree. We hold however, that it is their right to speak their opinions as we have the right to speak our own.

In the end, each of us will decide on what we think is best for the country. It is of course important that we resolve the crises before us. But it is also important to resolve it in such a way that our most cherished values and freedoms are not impaired or threatened.

The President's Record is a Failure

Remember "hope and change" and the promise of an "open" administration? By President Obama's own standards he has not served the country well. His record is a failure.

On the Economy: The economy should have been the President's first priority. Instead he seemed fixated on other issues most notably health care. When he did address the economy, it was in terms of government solutions and expenditures such as the stimulus program. He seemed indifferent to the rapid growth of our national debt and the impact of increased government involvement in the private sector, an important economic driver. As of this date, 3.5 years into his presidency, the state of the economy and the unemployment rate continues to be unacceptable.

On Health Care: The President's program to remedy problems in the health care system again revealed his predisposition for government solutions. With his support, the Democrat leadership in Congress rammed through the "Affordable Care Act" in virtual secrecy. This 3000 page document was passed without the participation of many members of Congress and lacked public support. We to this day do not have a full understanding of what is authorized by the Act. The passage of this legislation left an unfavorable impression on the public not only for its perceived government interference in personal health care decisions but also for the manner in which it was passed.

On Religious Freedom: As part of the "Affordable Care Act", President Obama has sought to force religious institutions, contrary to their beliefs, to provide contraceptives and abortifacient drugs to their employees. This is a direct attack on freedom of religion as provided for in the very first amendment to the Constitution. The attempt was heavy handed and raises concern on the vulnerability of our most cherished freedoms. (For a related article, see "A Nation Adrift From the Rule of Law" by David Skeel in today's Wall Street Journal").

On Foreign Affairs: President Obama, by his words and deeds, apparently wants to see America less involved in world affairs. In trouble spots such as Syria, Libya and others, his leadership can best be categorized as not fully engaged. The result of a lack of clear leadership and policy is a power vacuum where countries such as Iran, China and Russia are exerting more power and influence.
After World War II, when the Soviet threat became manifest, President Truman took the lead in forging the NATO Alliance. That is the sort of responsible leadership that the president, as head of the world's preeminent democracy, should exercise. If we don't lead, who will?

In conclusion: President Obama's current campaign slogan is "Forward.". The slogan sends a message that we should stay on the same path, even if it's one we don't understand or accept and without a clear destination. We should change path to one that we recognize, know how to navigate and with a clearly identifiable goal. That is the choice we face this November.

No Matter Who Wins in November, Change is Inevitable

Whoever wins the presidential election, the path our country is currently on cannot be sustained. Whether we are heading towards a diminished or renewed America depends on the choice we make.

The Democrats would have us believe that the safe choice is to re-elect the President. Given his policies, that will mean continuing deterioration of the economy and ultimate crises. Unless we establish control of the federal government's spending and take steps to reduce our debt, the results will be comparable to those we see in Europe with one significant difference.  The magnitude of our problem is so large that no one entity could possibly bail us out. This is our problem to fix.

Neither can we depend on an increase in taxes. When taxes are uncompetitive with other nations (as they are already) some investment dollars will eventually move to those countries. The entrepreneurs who remain here will find less incentive to take risks. The ultimate result will be a lower gross national product, less jobs and a decrease in tax revenue, not more. It will also mean an increase in debt thereby compounding our problems. No one will benefit and the poor will suffer the most.

We must change direction to get out of our current spiral of debt. It requires bold action now, not later. We need to control spending and find ways to restructure entitlements so that they are sustainable into the future. That includes Medicare which is a significant part of the problem but not the only one. In the final analysis, the choice before us is deciding what the size and scope of the federal government should be, what role it should have in our daily lives and in the economy.

Republicans hold that these the answers to these questions can be determined by relying on our nation's fundamental principles established at the time of its beginnings. We have always cherished the principles of individual freedom and rights. Historically we have found that with initiative and hard work, individuals can improve their circumstances as well as contributing to the national welfare.

A rudimentary understanding of economics shows that no one can spend beyond their means indefinitely. That includes government. That inconvenient fact is more compelling when we already have large debt, anemic growth and high unemployment.

We have experienced the results of the Democrats' policies over their current tenure. Their continuation will mean more of the same results: more debt, slow growth and high unemployment. The President has it backwards. Government spending does not create wealth. Rather it is the private sector that produces the wealth that makes it possible for government to function.

The Republican plan offers a path to greater individual opportunity and economic growth. It is based on our core values as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. To insure this result, we must control spending, reform entitlements, keep taxes competitive in a global economy and reduce the size of government. The Republican plan is the alternative that should give us hope, not despair, about our future.

In Defense of the Constitution

As stated in the Constitution, the Federal Government was established with specific enumerated powers granted separately to the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches. The founding fathers were clear that these powers were limited. Alexander Hamilton, a strong advocate for the Constitution, argued against the inclusion of the "Bill of Rights" since "---why declare that things should not be done when there is no power to do so?". (The Federalist Papers, page 513 (No. 84) Edited by Clinton Rossiter).

To emphasize the point, Amendment X of the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Obama Administration has taken actions that may be expedient to attain its goals but are constitutionally suspect. To cite some examples, it has:

     *Advised companies that they need not comply with a law that requires notification to employees 60 days prior to an impending layoff,

     *Indicated that it would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act,

     *Not effectively enforced the immigration laws and nullified certain provisions by executive edict,

     *Written regulations forcing religious organizations to provide their employees health care coverage for contraceptives and abortifacient drugs and

     *Has provided work requirement waivers for those on welfare contrary to the welfare reform legislation passed during the Clinton Administration.

No President can decide under the Constitution which laws he will enforce and those that he will not enforce. Nor can he issue executive orders contrary to the powers granted to him in the Constitution or by Congress under its constitutional authority to legislate.

If the President believes that the Federal Government requires more power in the national interest, he ought to make his case to the American people and seek a constitutional amendment to do so.

The Constitution is not a document that we should honor only when it suits our purposes. It is the basic law of the land, duly ratified and accepted by the people. Some of its provisions did not come easily. The country fought a Revolution that made it possible and a Civil War to insure its benefits to all citizens.

These are the ties that hold us together. We are a nation of laws, not of a discretionary and arbitrary authority. The Constitution needs to be "preserved, protected and defended" for us to remain a free and united country.




     

The Conditions for a Free and Vibrant Economy.

After recent comments by President Obama (see my last post), there followed a debate about the individual's role in the economy and that of the government's.

We have numerous examples where individual initiative and hard work led to successful enterprises (Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Ray Kroc and Steve Jobs to name a few). What are the conditions for such individuals to succeed and what is government's proper role?

It is true that government at all levels can have a positive influence in promoting economic activity such as insuring the public safety, providing education and the building and maintenance of public roads. But what is the government's proper role in the regulation of business?

In an article in this weekend's edition of the Wall Street Journal (7/28 & 29) "Why Capitalism Has an Image Problem" by Charles Murray, the author states that any new government "intervention meet this burden of proof: It will accomplish something that tort law and enforcement of basic laws against force, fraud and collusion do not accomplish". He goes on to say that large enterprises can cope with regulatory burdens, such as the Dodd-Frank law, but those regulations can  crush small businesses and individuals trying to start small businesses.

In a separate article in the Journal on 7/23/12 ("Firms Pass Up Tax Breaks, Citing Complexity), John D. McKinnon cites numerous examples of tax breaks in the tax code that are so complex and costly to administer that many companies do not claim them. He states that "eligible businesses obtain as little as 5% of the main domestic tax breaks that they are entitled to claim".

Capitalism is defined as: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market". (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Any government that unduly intervenes in the free market system not only diminishes our freedom but threatens our prosperity as well. One could argue that we are well on the road to that conclusion and the results are evident for all to see.

The Choice is Clear: Stagnation or Prosperity

No doubt you have heard of President Obama's comment of Friday, July 13.  In part, he said:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. 

There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create 

this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. 

Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business--you didn't build that. 

Somebody else made that happen". 

The problem with this argument is addressed in a blog written by James Pethokoukis writing for the American Enterprise Institute, quoted in the Wall Street Journal on July 17: "Few opponents of higher taxes are arguing that the most successful Americans should pay no taxes---" (in order to pay for public goods that the government provides). But Obama has added to this point  "---that there is no such thing as individual achievement or merit. All success is directly due to society's collective effort as manifested by government".

As a result of these recent comments by Obama (and past ones as well such as his comment of "spreading the wealth" in 2008), we now have a clearer understanding of his views. I  describe them as that of a community organizer applied to the national stage. That is a view that seeks to redistribute wealth by taking from the more successful and redistributing it to the less fortunate. It is a static view of the economy in which little or no growth can occur.

The opposing view relies on a system of free enterprise where individuals through their own initiative and ingenuity increase wealth through technological innovation and increases in productivity benefiting all. This view does not deny the government's role in providing the infrastructure and the ground rules necessary to insure fair competition. But beyond that, government should "get out of the way".

Any president's constituency should include everyone in the country, not just those to whom he would provide special favors or would benefit from his redistributive schemes (and vote for him). President Obama's views are divisive in that he attacks and demonizes those who are successful in growing the economy.

The choice in November is clear: To vote for an ideology that puts government at the center of our economy (and society) leading to economic stagnation or to vote for a idea that recognizes the right of a free people to pursue their own individual dreams and have the opportunity to succeed, leading to economic prosperity.

Some Random Thoughts on a Sunday Morning

1. The presidential campaign thus far has been described as lacking in excitement. Romney has been criticized as being non-inspirational; compared to President Reagan, he has been found wanting.
Obama is running scared and his campaign tactics show it; he is divisive and certainly not presidential.
I don't think that these criticisms will amount to much in Nov. The foremost problem we have is the economy, unemployment and a huge debt.  These are the issues that the public wants discussed and ultimately solved. Politically, style, excitement etc. may be desirable, but they are not enough. We had a candidate with plenty of style (and not much else) in 2008 and look where it got us. This time we want a president who is effective.

2.  Condoleezza Rice would be a worthy candidate for vice-president. She is smart, experienced and articulate. Her tenure as President's Bush national security advisor and Sec. of State would provide Romney with expertise in foreign affairs and the inner workings of government. But she has a couple of drawbacks: one, she is pro-choice which would be a problem for many Republicans and second, her role in the Bush administration would give the Democrats an opening to bring up the Iraq war and all that goes with it. In my opinion, Romney should choose someone that represents the future (such as Mark Rubio or Paul Ryan) and not the past.

3.  As I stated previously, Obamacare should be repealed and replaced. It will continue to be an issue in the campaign and rightly so. Consider:

     *It was approved by SCOTUS by rewriting the law and dismissing other facts that did not support its rationale. The Court's decision sets a very dangerous precedent and should be negated by repealing the law.
     *Obamacare will result in unprecedented government power and regulation. It gives government bureaucrats wide latitude in governing key aspects of health care that should be left to individuals and private organizations.
     *It threatens fundamental liberties by use of the individual mandate and by forcing religious institutions to participate in practices that they don't condone, such as abortion.
     *It increases our national debt to historical highs and risk the country's economic vitality for us and for future generations. One must ask what possible good Obamacare will do anyone if the underlying economy is bankrupt or near bankruptcy.
     *Finally, it increases taxes to areas and to levels that will adversely impact private initiative and our free economy.

4. The choice in Nov. is between two very different approaches to government. The liberal agenda relies on more government involvement and increases in public spending for infrastructure to stimulate the economy. The conservative view is to grow the economy by providing American businesses with the conditions to compete in a global economy. How we choose will determine what kind of country we have going forward.

I welcome yiur comments.

The Current Health Care Finance System is Broken and Should be Replaced

There have been numerous comments about the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) otherwise known as Obamacare.

Advocates of the ACA stress its goals of providing health care insurance coverage to more Americans and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions.  Those in opposition to the Act (as approved by the Court) point to its deficiencies primarily in the Act's mandates which limit individual freedom of choice, increased taxes (and the government's authority to impose them) and a rise in spending when we can least afford it.

Our current system for financing  health care is broken. Since it is based on reimbursement of fees charged and not a competitive price structure, it has grown in costs and inefficiencies. Efforts to fix it by top down bureaucratic micromanagement have only aggravated its problems. No amount of tinkering, including Obamacare, can fix it.  It should be replaced in its entirety.

The goals for a new financing system should be simplicity, efficient and sound health care administration, lower costs to the consumer and meet the constitutional criteria for individual rights of free choice.

Since our Republic's beginning, the system that has best met these criteria and been the engine of unprecedented prosperity has been that of free enterprise.  History has shown in this country and others that government run economies lead to a loss of individual freedom and economic stagnation.

The answer to the health care problem should be clear. As a start, Obamacare should be repealed and  replaced with a system of competitive private insurance able to compete in all states. Over time persons who become eligible for Medicare should have the option of choosing private coverage over the Medicare system.  In order to provide coverage to most persons, government could subsidize insurance premiums for a stipulated program for those in need. As to preexisting conditions, an assigned risk pool, preferably administered by the individual states, should meet the need.

Now is not the time for half-measures. On this Independence Day, we should strive for a health care financing system that respects the individual right to freedom and meets his/her health care needs.

A Short Hiatus

After a short hiatus in following political events (and posting to the blog), I realize that truly significant political events occur infrequently. One such event was the Supreme Court's decision this week regarding Arizona's immigration law. The Court found that Arizona police could question persons who they had reason to believe were in the country illegally. However, the Court limited the police power by denying them the power of arrest in such instances. Also voided were parts of the law that made certain actions by undocumented residents a state crime by virtue of their status. However much that the Obama administration may declare victory in this case, we should remember that Arizona (and other states) have carried the major burden of the inaction of the federal government to enforce its own laws. Since the courts have now closed the option for state remedy, the only viable option is for action at the federal level. The problem of illegal immigration has festered too long. We, as a country, should be embarrassed by the lack of resolution. Both sides can blame the other but the fact remains that compromise will be required to resolve this issue and get it behind us. It is time for politicians of all persuasions to get off the soap boxes and start working with each other in the public interest.

The Road Ahead: The Choice in Nov. Becomes Clearer.

This has been a watershed week.

Last Tuesday, June 5, the voters in Wisconsin decided to continue Gov. Scott Walker in office in a recall election.  In this weekend's "The Wall Street Journal" in an article titled: "What's Changed After Wisconsin", Peggy Noonan states: "The big meaning of Wisconsin is that a public injustice is in the process of being righted because a public mood is changing."

The "public injustice" referred to is that public employees in Wisconsin were being compensated better than the average private worker (and taxpayer).  Gov. Walker reduced government costs by reducing pension and health care costs; he did not lay off public employees. The governor (and others) have shown that it is possible to cut spending in a rational way without endangering public safety and education as the unions allege.

On Friday, June 8, President Obama said in a news conference: "The private sector is doing fine." He went on to say that "Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government--oftentimes, cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in."(WSJ editorial in this weekend's edition).

The editorial goes on to say that in fact state and local revenues have increased 6% over the last two years and that the president continues to believe "--that the more government spending is the key to faster growth and that government really doesn't need to reform."  I would add that the president seems indifferent about our national debt and unsustainable public spending; perhaps he missed that class in economics 101.

Finally, during the past week, the Obama team seems in disarray. As Peggy Noonan stated in the above cited article: "It just increasingly looks like a house of cards". She points out the president's avoidance of the Wisconsin recall election, his recent misstatement about spending in his administration,  breaches of security in Washington and Bill Clinton's statements about Mitt Romney's "sterling record" and other comments by Clinton regarding tax policy and campaign tactics. Noonan concludes: "But maybe Bubba's looking at the president and seeing what far more than half of Washington sees: a man who is limited, who thinks himself clever, and who doesn't know that clever right now doesn't cut it."

The final record of this historical campaign will not be fully known until November. There are some important events yet to occur. The Supreme Court will shortly announce its decision on the issues raised by Obamacare, Republicans will choose a vice president nominee and conventions and debates will take place.

But the positions that define each nominee are now in clear focus. President Obama represents big government, more spending and debt, a diminished economy and lost opportunities for all. The contrast with the Romney position couldn't be clearer: limited government, less spending, free enterprise, a growing economy and greater opportunity and freedom for all.

Romney's Position on Key Issues

On the key issues of the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney has stated positions which reflect the principles of free enterprise and limited government.

In order to grow the economy, create jobs and reduce the size of government, he has made specific proposals on taxes, spending and government regulations and programs as well as plans to increase trade, energy production and other areas which affect the economy.

The following is a brief summary of Romney's positions on some of the key issues. A more detailed and complete description can be found at http://www.mittromney.com/issues.

     *Taxes: Advocates a 20% cut in marginal rates across the board for individual taxpayers. Would cut corporate tax rates from the current 35% to 25% so that U.S. corporations would be more competitive in today's global economy.

     *Spending: His goals are to cut spending to 20% of GDP (vs. 24.3% last year), return non-security discretionary spending to below 2008 levels, build a "simpler, smaller, smarter government" (repeal Obamacare, privatize Amtrak, reduce subsidies to arts and humanities etc, eliminate family planning funds and reduce foreign aid) and other measures.

     *Regulations: Require Congressional approval for new major regulations, reform of the legal liability system and streamline and modernize business regulations.

     *Energy: Supports pipelines to bring Canadian energy to the U.S., implement procedures to facilitate domestic oil and natural gas reserves and encourage further investment in nuclear power.

     *Medicare: Favors reform by changing to a premium support system where seniors would receive a fixed amount to buy private insurance; the current Medicare program would stay in place for seniors who prefer that option.

     *Social Security: Advocates a plan that "for future generations of seniors---the retirement age should be slowly increased for increases in longevity". Has also stated that benefits should continue to grow but "the growth rate should be lower for those with higher incomes".

Any decision on who to vote for in this year's presidential election should take into account not only the candidate's policy positions but also his experience, leadership ability, character and intelligence. Given all of these factors, I believe that Mitt Romney is the better candidate to lead the country in the critical times ahead.

The Obama Administration: A Risky Experiment that Failed

What are the reasons Barack Obama was elected to the presidency in 2008?

His obvious strengths were that he spoke well and with his election, would represent an important milestone in America's race relations. On policy issues, his main message was hope and change but except for the Iraq war, he was not specific.

However, in such areas as experience, positions on many important issues, personal background and values, we knew next to nothing.

We now have more information based on actual performance. If we are to be objective, his presidency should be judged a failure.  To have elected Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 was a risk that the country should not have taken.

What else should one conclude from a president who has:

     *Increased the national debt by $5 trillion during his term (so far) and shows little regard for its effects,

     *Frittered away billions for so called "stimulus" expenditures, bailouts and loans to industry that will never be repaid or were wasted on pet projects such as Solyndra (which went bankrupt),

     *Signed a health care bill whose repercussions are not fully understood, is costly, does not have public support and includes an individual mandate that is most likely unconstitutional,

     *Issued regulations to religious organizations that mandated their participation in medical procedures that are counter to their beliefs and in defiance of the first amendment to the Constitution,

     *Failed to lead the country to solve our problems (most notably the economy) but instead sought to evade responsibility by blaming almost everyone else and thereby dividing the country with his accusations,

     *Espoused more spending and bigger government despite our huge debt and in disregard of constitutional principles,

     *Apologized for America's alleged mistakes while ignoring our rightful actions through history and  demonstrated an arrogance and disdain for America's proper role in the world?

Based on his record, he should not be reelected.

The Road to November

The presidential campaign has now evolved into a predictable pattern; that is, the main issues are in the forefront but are frequently sidelined. Topics which most voters would consider as not their top priority, such as gay marriage and alleged character issues of the candidates for instance, often gain the spotlight. But as of now, the most important issues are the economy and the size of government.

When Bill Clinton first ran for president in 1992, his political mantra was "It's the economy, stupid." That sentiment is also applicable today. Our economic growth is anemic and employment levels unsatisfactory. We are fast approaching a $16 trillion debt, a debt we cannot support for long unless we change economic course.

The approach we take to solve these problems will be ours to choose in November. The Democrats call for more government stimulus and spending, an idea of uncertain provenance, which will result in more debt. The Republican approach is to rely on the free enterprise system to grow the economy, which historically, America has been at the forefront.

Current polls of voter sentiment are inconclusive and often contradictory. During the next six months there are some significant events on the horizon that will impact election results. Domestically, they include economic factors such as growth and unemployment, the Supreme Court's pending decisions on health care, gay marriage and a state's right to enforce immigration laws and actions pending in Congress to raise the debt limit and potential bills related to taxes and spending. In foreign affairs, there is the possible implosion of the EU and the euro and the potential threat to peace posed by Iran.

All of the above factors plus any unforeseen events will have an effect on the election. What that will be depends on the candidates' reactions to actual events and crises and the subsequent public evaluation of which candidate can best lead the country.

Have They No Sense of Decency?

During the late 1940's and early 1950's, Senator Joseph McCarthy used unethical methods to uncover what he perceived as communist infiltration of the government and other institutions. His methods of intimidation, innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations destroyed many careers and reputations.

At a hearing of a Senate Committee which he chaired, and after he bullied a number of witnesses, Senator McCarthy was asked by a Boston lawyer, Joseph Welch: "Have you no sense of decency, Sir--?". Not long after, the Senator was censured by the Senate for behavior "contrary to senatorial traditions" and his influence effectively came to an end.

In today's political climate, candidates, especially those who lack or have a meager record of accomplishments and qualifications, may attempt to deflect the debate even to the point of stereotyping, name calling and using outright fabrications in regard to their opponents.

No good can come of such tactics. They poison the political atmosphere, lead to confusion and divisiveness and they make it even more difficult to discuss concrete solutions to our very real problems.

During the past week, the Obama campaign and its allies have initiated a process of referring to their opponents as racists, homophobic and misogynists.  From that, one can conclude that they don't intend to run on their record and are devoid of any realistic solutions. One can further conclude that they are so ideologically bound that, to them, their ends justify the means even if they are detrimental to the country's well-being.

Have they no sense of decency?

Stereotypes: Impact on Political Climate

It's an obvious fact but bears repeating: each individual is unique.  We all have different talents, characteristics and opinions.  This is true even among close families and groups of friends. It is also true among members of larger organizations.

Members of political parties, for instance, often have different views from that of other members. Some of these views may even be shared with members of an opposing political party. In America, that is sometimes the case as Senators and Representatives primarily reflect the interests of their constituencies and shape their judgement accordingly.

In a presidential election year, however, the pressure to present a united front is paramount.  That is due to the fact that the office of the modern day presidency holds a great amount of power. It is a prize each party dearly wants. Add to this ingredient a sensationalist 24/7 news/ talk show media with the power of money and the result is an atmosphere of vitriol and divisiveness.

In such an atmosphere, the temptation is to demonize your opponents, to brand them in a fixed and unfavorable image. In a word, to stereotype.

You will hear in the upcoming campaign various stereotypical descriptions of political opponents such as "leftists", "rightists", "misogynists", "racists" (or similar) as well as others. Such name calling does a grave disservice to our country, the democratic process and to the honest men and women who choose to run for public office.  But it is also a disservice to the independent thinking members of the party using such tactics since it pressures them to conform to the group thinking: "if you are not with us, you are against us".

As voters, we need to be aware of such tactics and resist them.  We should insist on a discussion of the issues based on fact and what is best for the country. As an independent and free people, we should each use our own critical judgement in casting our ballot. Our country deserves no less.

Stereotypes

We have all heard of the typical stereotype. It can apply to persons or groups of persons of different countries, ethnicities, geographic areas, political persuasion among others.

For instance, residents of Vermont are generally thought of as being liberal although that hasn't always been the case.  To carry the example a step further, we generally picture Vermonters as wearing sandals (with socks in cold weather) and enjoying their brie and wine (preferably foreign and organic).

But this kind of classification can get confusing.  I'm sure Vermonters would man the ramparts if their way of life were threatened. In defense of the status quo--now that could be a conservative position.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are often pictured as wearing shoes without socks (in warm weather) but not the open toed type. But I also know conservatives who wouldn't dream of wearing shoes without socks and prefer beer and salsa. It can get confusing.

For instance, on the subject of hair care. Conservative men are said to prefer short hair whereas, if you see  a man with long hair, you might assume that he is liberal. For women, conservatives are generally seen as using a hair stylists whereas many liberals are imagined to be less demanding. I even heard of one self described liberal who cuts her own hair. Now that could be labeled as frugality, a trait near and dear to many conservatives.

In short, stereotyping persons or different groups is not a slam dunk. Individuals or groups who are labeled as "liberal" or "conservative" may have several different outlooks and many times those outlooks intersect. That is also true of people of different ethnicities, geographic areas, genders or color of skin. More about that in my next post.

The 2012 Election Presents a Clear Choice--It's Time.

In this presidential election year, our choice is clear, the issues serious and the outcome important. Emotions will be high and it is likely the debate acrimonious. One wishes the opposite would be true; an important election especially should be held with a serious debate based on issues.

In hindsight, the debates in 2008 should have been more meaningful and the choice clearer. That they were not was due to the controversy over the war in Iraq, an inept Republican organization and a Democratic campaign based on vague promises of "hope and change".

After more than three years of the Obama presidency, we now know what "hope and change" really means and where the President wants to lead the country. In this year of 2012, the choice before us is very clear. Are we to have a society headed by a large and powerful central government or are we to have a smaller, limited government with enumerative powers and a meaningful federal system as the Founding Fathers intended?

For make no mistake, the reelection of Barack Obama will put us further down the road to a larger, more powerful national government to the detriment of the Constitution, our liberty and our very future.

The State of the Union under President Obama

From the time he first entered the national stage, Barack Obama has been an enigma. We knew very little of his background, his accomplishments or his beliefs. During his election campaign, we learned a few facts: that he was a community organizer, supposedly intelligent and a great speaker. He ran on a platform of hope and change which were left undefined.

After three plus years of his presidency, we now have some basis for judgement. We now know his bias for government solutions, his antipathy toward free enterprise and those who excel in it, his unconcern for constitutional principles which interfere with his agenda, his seeming indifference toward an unsustainable national debt, his penchant to divide us and not unite us and his tendency to view America not as "a shining city on a hill" but a country for which he must apologize.

Through his policies and actions, he has made a bad economic situation worse. Unemployment and underemployment remain high. The housing market has not recovered and there is no prospect that it will  for some time. The cost of energy has risen affecting not only travel but the costs of everything we buy. And the national debt keeps rising, a problem for us and future generations as well.

We will not improve our economic health by redistributing wealth in a static economy. The government's role should be to establish the conditions under which free markets and free individuals can function to the benefit of all. We do not need or want a government that seeks to "transform" America and which imposes unconstitutional mandates.

Much of our problems are due to the fact that we now compete in a global economy in which we are not competitive. To fix it, we need less government regulation, not more; less taxes, not more; less government spending, not more; less special interest favoritism, not more and less debt, not more.

The Constitution: Relevant Then & Now.

A short history from a conservative perspective---

At the time of the American Revolution and our country's early history, most citizens held their allegiance first and foremost to their respective states, that is the former colonies. These were a widely diverse group ranging from slave holding states to those where commercial interests were well established or religious groups were predominant.

The colonies were loosely organized during the revolutionary war and through 1988 under the so called "Articles of Confederation". But it was apparent that it was ineffective if only for the reason that it could not impose direct taxes on the country's citizens but relied on state legislatures to provide their funds (or it had to borrow the money).

The debate to approve a new constitution was acrimonious. Citizens remained suspicious of centralized government after a hard fought battle to win their freedom from a despotic king. The Constitution was only ratified after numerous assurances that its functions would be limited to those specified in the document. The first ten amendments ("The Bill of Rights") were put in at the insistence of the States in order to insure that state authority and individual sovereignty would remain paramount.

That started to change in the last half of the 19th century. As a result of the Civil War and the subsequent constitutional amendments to guaranty individual freedoms, it was the federal government that was seen as the primary protector of the people's rights, not the states. This process continued throughout the 20th century as a result of the Depression with its New Deal and later in the 1960's with President Johnson's Great Society programs.

It is now in the 21st century that we realize the dangers of government power that goes too far. The current expansions of federal authority are beyond those granted by the people in the Constitution and its amendments. It is impossible to justify such mandates as requiring individuals to buy health insurance, to dictate local education policies or to interfere in the free markets without a perverse twisting of the Constitution's words and meaning. The federal government is now viewed by many not as a defender of individual liberty but as its antagonist. It's as if the Constitution were turned on its head.

It is time to return to the sound constitutional principle of limited and specified powers.  A freedom loving people cannot and should not accept anything less. The future of the Republic as we know it is at stake.

The U.S. Tax System and Political Reality.

At this time every year, we are faced with the reality of a very dysfunctional tax system. It is dysfunctional  on two levels.

First, the reporting requirements are so complex and byzantine that only someone with a vested interest in the current system could love it. Just try reading a few pages of any of the many instructions covering innumerable forms and complex calculations. (For instance, just one booklet of instructions (for form 1040) is nearly 200 pages long and includes numerous schedules and mind bending computations.)

Second, the system is complex and dysfunctional because politicians have made it that way. They have manipulated the system to their benefit by providing tax advantages to their friends and supporters who in turn supply the funds and vote for their re-elections.

Recently, President Obama has launched his re-election campaign on the issue of "fairness". He was referring to situations where some of the very rich pay less taxes than what he deems "fair". What he doesn't mention is that the tax system he is criticizing is one which he and other politicians (of both parties) have supported and sustained.

A recent article by Thomas Sowell ("Tax policy 'fairness' amounts to fraud", The Times-Union, Feb. 23, 2012) states the following--I quote in part:

     "While talking about 'fairness' may provide a fig leaf to cover politicians' naked attempts to grab more and more of the nation's resources to spend, there is no assurance that raising tax rates 'on the rich' will result in any more tax revenue for the government. High tax rates have too often simply caused wealthy people to put their money into tax-free securities or to send it overseas."

     "High tax rates in the upper income brackets allow politicians to win votes with class warfare rhetoric, painting their opponents as defenders of the rich. Meanwhile, the same politicians can win donations from the rich by creating tax loopholes that can keep the rich from actually paying those higher tax rates--or perhaps any taxes at all."

Any and all comments are welcome.


    

What Does it Mean to be "Presidential"?

Of all our presidents, which stand out and why?  Is it character, accomplishments or both---or something else?  How we judge a past president (or choose a new one) says a lot about who we are as a nation.

Most of us would agree that both Presidents Washington and Lincoln should be held in high regard. Both were patriotic, courageous and were men of high personal integrity. We admire their selflessness and dedication to performing their duties in trying times. Neither were petty or petulant.  Both were generous in their relations with others including their adversaries. They each had the ability to inspire others with their calm, astute and principled leadership often at great sacrifice to themselves and the nation.

In modern times who would measure up? I would submit three: Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan. Like Presidents Washington and Lincoln, these men were patriotic, courageous and had the ability to inspire and lead the nation. Each of them had respect for the institutions of government and especially for the Office of the Presidency. In the performance of their duties, they acted accordingly and with dignity. On a personal level, we remember them as men of principle and personal character.

Each of these five Presidents, as well as others, have demonstrated character traits and abilities that define what it means to be "presidential". We should remember their examples in choosing our next president.

Obamacare: The Supreme Court Decides

In the case before the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare, references will be made to prior Court decisions as well as established law and various clauses of the Constitution. The most significant of these clauses for this case is Article I, Section 8 which in part states that Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce--among the several States--" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution--" the powers granted to it.

Up to the 1930's, Court decisions held that Congress was "restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one." ("Gibbons v. Ogden"-1824).  This was true even when child labor was involved when the Court struck down such a law reasoning "---that mill work was part of intrastate manufacturing and not commerce among the states." ("Hammer v. Dagenhart" (1918) as quoted in "Atlantic" in an article titled: "How Obamacare Will Be Settled: A Primer on the Commerce Clause")

Starting in the 1930's Court decisions started to be more expansive. In "National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation" (1937), the Court found that Jones and Laughlin could not penalize workers seeking to unionize.  The Court "--saying for the first time that Congress could regulate activities with a 'close and substantial relation to interstate commerce.' " And in "Wickford v. Filburn" (1942), the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 "--licensing Congress to legislate local individual actions that could potentially affect interstate commerce in the aggregate."  (bold letters mine--Quotes from same article in "Atlantic" cited above).

The expansion of Congress's power under the commerce clause continued through the 20th century.  In such areas as discrimination against small business to unfair business practices in professional football, Congress's authority to act under the commerce clause was upheld by the Court.  And in 1964, the Civil Rights Act's provisions for desegregation of motels and restaurants was upheld as within Congress's power under the commerce clause.

The last significant Court decision for purposes of the Obamacare case was in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) when the Court approved the Controlled Substance Act thereby overriding the California law legalizing marijuana.  The Court's reasoning reflected that cited above in the Wickford case.

It should be noted, however, that there is no precedent in which the Court ruled that coercing individuals to participate in any specific market (as distinct from individuals who have elected to participate of their own volition) was within Congress's power.

In addition to the commerce clause, there are several other constitutional issues that will come into play. Such as: 1.) whether contract law is applicable (holds that persons cannot be forced into contracts), 2.) whether the penalties for not buying insurance are a tax (that would force the case to be postponed until individuals had actually paid the tax under a 19th century law), 3.) whether the individual mandate is severable from the total law (if it isn't, the total law must be scraped) and 4.) whether the provisions for increasing Medicaid burdens on the states is in violation of the 10th amendment (which states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.").

This is a complicated issue. But in my non-legalistic opinion, the Court will rule for an individual's right  to choose or not to choose, of his own free will, to participate in any market.  I base that view on the foundation of individual liberty and limited government expressed so clearly in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and The Federalist Papers.

Note: For more information on the cases mentioned, refer to the "Atlantic" article cited above and to an article appearing in "Defining Ideas-A Hoover Institution Journal" entitled "Obamacare vs. the Commerce Clause".

The House of Representatives: Is it Representative?

"As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an immediate sympathy with, the people." ("The Federalist Papers.  No. 52: The House of Representatives" (Madison)).

The national government established by the Constitution provided for a House of Representatives that, of the three branches of government, would be closest to the people as described in the above quote. Along with the limited powers granted by the Constitution and the checks and balances among the three branches, the "Peoples House" would be less susceptible to the more permanent branches of government (and presumably other influences as well) to be seduced. Under this concept, liberty would be protected.

We have come a long way from the Constitutional concept. We have in the House today many representatives that are not "immediately dependent on" the people but dependent on moneyed interests for campaign funds.  They have become a closed society of political insiders, dismissive of voter concerns and arrogant in the power they have and which they continue to accumulate.  They have become career politicians, in office too long, remote and aloof from their constituents.

In another statement in the "Federalist Papers" (No. 52) cited above, Madison states: "It is a received and well-founded maxim that----the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration, and conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted."

Applied to total time in office, that is, the number of terms served by representatives, we would conclude that many representatives in modern government should return to private life.  There are two factors that make our time significantly different from Madison's. First, the Federal Government, including the House of Representatives, has much more power than it did previously and secondly, representatives stay in office, for a variety of reasons, longer than is prudent for a free society.

We need to resolve the problem that the House of Representatives is not truly representative of the people. What is the solution?  In my opinion, the only long term and realistic answer is a constitutional amendment that provides for term limits.  More about that in future postings; in the meantime, I welcome your comments.

Some Thoughts on the Current Status of the Primary

Based on news reports this morning, Mitt Romney has 407 committed delegates or 53% of those chosen thus far.  If he continues at this pace,  he will win the nomination before the convention.  Some argue that Romney may be derailed from obtaining the nomination if one (or two) of his opponents drop out. That is not a given for it is just as possible that Romney's margin may increase if he can manage to hold on to his base support and pick up some of the voters of the candidate(s) who leave the race.

There have been some suggestions (by mostly liberal pundits) that the Republican Party is so split over the paramountcy of social and fiscal issues as well as the candidates' conservative credentials that Obama will almost certainly win in November. I think that the Party is able to fight on both fronts.  As far as political differences, we need only remember that past primary opponents have resolved their differences to campaign successfully in the general election (Kennedy and Johnson in 1960, Reagan and Bush in 1980 and Obama and Clinton in 2008).

We should also be mindful that the country did not get into this mess in one year or even one term but over several decades. Nor will we turn the ship of state around in a short period of time.  A doable short term goal is to defeat Obama first and to cancel his most egregious programs.

There is, however, a need for a long term vision of conservative governance and why it is superior to the liberal view. Republicans need to consider not only gaining the Presidency (as well as control of both Houses of Congress) in this election year but to lay the foundations for future successes.  This is essential if we are to solve our problems for the simple reason that it will take some time to resolve our multiple difficulties and put (as well as maintain) the country on a sound footing.